Real Clear Arts

Judith H. Dobrzynski on Culture

Give The Artist Credit…

There are many reasons to admire the artist-provocateur Ai Weiwei and now I’ve learned of another. In conjunction with his show at the Art Gallery of Ontario, Ai Weiwei According to What?, the man is going to do a live video chat with the museum’s visitors on Sept. 5. The AGO’s director and CEO, Matthew Teitelbaum, will be asking the questions — or at least moderating (the announcement is a little unclear on that).

ai_weiwei_1763586b-300x187Not too many artists would do this, imho. I’ve spoken with quite a few who evade questions and say things like “the art speaks for itself.”

But according to the Teitelbaum, Ai will “share his insights into his art, activism and passion for China and its changing landscape.” He continued: “As we open this major exhibition, Weiwei’s physical absence is deeply felt, but technology allows him to defy borders so we can welcome him personally to Toronto.” The chat will take place during the AGO’s First Thursdays art parties.

This is the same show that was at the Hirshhorn Museum earlier this year, then went to Indianapolis and will eventually get to Miami and Brooklyn. It’s an updated version of the show at the Mori Museum in Tokyo in 2009.

In Toronto, it includes more than 40 large-scale works and, says the AGO, “the exhibition blends art history, activism and traditional Chinese materials and symbols to create a compelling vision of the artist’s everyday reality and his ongoing fight for freedom of expression in the face of Chinese government censorship.”

Kudos to whoever thought of the chat, and to the never-shy Ai for doing it.

 

 

 

In Defense Of Art: Please Respond

This is your chance, and it may be your best chance, to make the case for art museums. Right now, online, The New York Times has invited a dialogue with readers that will run in Sunday’s Review section. You must respond by tomorrow (Thursday) to be considered for publication.

Frank RobinsonFrank Robinson, former director of Cornell’s art museum, the Williams College Art Museum and RISD, has posed the question — to my mind, way too simplistically. Nonetheless, the last words of his post are: “How many lives is a Rembrandt worth?”

You can read his entire “Invitation to a Dialogue” letter here.

Robinson sets up the question around the mess in Detroit, beginning “…How can we equate a few pieces of canvas with paint on them with the pensions of thousands of firefighters, nurses, police officers, teachers and other civil servants?”

First off, no one sensible is equating the two, and that is part of the problem. It’s not that simple. Robinson makes matters worse by saying this “problem” is repeated in many places around the country because art museums get tax breaks, and that many museums are increasingly dependent on government aid. Really? I’d like to see some statistics for that assertion – minus the tax deduction argument, which countries in Europe and elsewhere have decided is the best way to go. At time when others are copying us, this former museum director is undercutting the very system that works.

Finally, Robinson repeats the hoary tale that museums are not open to everyone. That is just nonsense. I’ve seen museums twist themselves into knots trying to broaden their audiences — even doing the equivalent of selling their souls for it. Yes, I am thinking of all those Star-Wars-like exhibitions that never belonged in an art museum.

Throughout his letter, Robinson mixes apples with oranges with cherries and bananas and even throws a few tomatoes in — quite an accomplishment for a 322-word letter.

But you can respond far better than I.

Don’t let this opportunity go by. Write your opinions to letters@nytimes.com. The anti-museum folks are out there.

Photo Credit: Courtesy of Cornell

 

 

 

 

Checking In On The Turrell Exhibits: Hits, And Probably Expensive — UPDATED

When the triple-play exhibitions of James Turrell this year are over — at LACMA (through Apr. 6, 2014), the Guggenheim (through Sept. 25), and the Museum of Fine Arts, Houston (through Sept. 22) — I wonder how the economics will all play out.

9097036052_1e138ce9e1_zAll are critical and (I’ve heard) popular hits, and my question was prompted by the announcement from the Guggenheim last week that it was holdings private evening viewings (one picture of what they’ll see is at left) exclusively for members — but charging them for the privilege. These “member-exclusive Quiet Views” cost $15. They are set for August 12, August 19, September 9, and September 23, and each will have two “sittings,” the first starting at 7:30 pm and the second at 9 pm. More details are here.

I can’t recall a similar situation. According to people I know who’ve gone to the show (I haven’t had the opportunity yet), at some times there are lines around the block, and at others, there’s no line at all. There are limits to the numbers in the museum at one time, though, so perhaps the Quiet Views are one way to recoup some lost money — though I have no idea about the added expenses to offer them.

At LACMA, meanwhile, which has had to limit the crowd at any one time because of the nature of the works, it’s fairly easy to purchase the timed tickets any day I tried. On the other hand, tickets to his two immersive artworks, Light Reignfall from his Perceptual Cell series and Dark Matters from his series titled Dark Spaces, are sold out for the run of the exhibit. They cost $45 to general public and $15 for members, far more than the main show, which is $25 for adults and free to members.

At MFAH, it’s better to reserve tickets in advance — they are timed — but not essential if you arrive when there’s room.

So, popularity versus limits on attendance. I’d bet that LACMA’s and the Guggenheim’s shows are expensive; they occupy huge spaces in the museum, and they cost a lot to build. The MFAH’s — which consists of works it already owned — probably less so.* Its tunnel, the largest piece in the show there, I think, was already installed.

But I am glad that the museums are paying attention to the needs of visitors, and the demands of the art works, by limiting attendance — even if it means they need to seek more support from donors to mount these shows.

If you can’t get to any of these exhibits, you might take a look at the Guggenheim’s video or MFAH’s video preview (scroll down a bit).

*UPDATE: Someone who has seen the Houston exhibition informs me that MFAH has turned over large spaces to the Turrell show there as well — so its costs are probably also very high (except, as I mentioned, the tunnel was and remains in place).

Photo Credit: Courtesy of the Guggenheim

 

“Figment” Project Goes Live For Warhol’s 85th

This is a little ghoulish, admittedly, but a company Earthcam, which calls itself “the global leader in providing webcam content, technology and services,” has been launching some arts-related project lately, and tonight at midnight, the newest one goes live. It will mark what would have been Andy Warhol’s 85th birthday, had he lived this long.

WarholFigmentCamIn “celebration,” as the press release says, Earthcam has organized an interactive multimedia project with the Warhol Museum. The elements:

  • A live feed with sound available 24/7 at Andy’s grave
  • HD 16 megapixel gravesite images updating every 15 minutes
  • One-of-a kind artwork with Warholian image effects and color pallets integrated into gravesite snapshots
  • A live streaming webcam with sound in the church where Andy was baptized, also available 24/7
  • The opportunity for people around the world to remember and interact with Andy by sending him a Campbell’s Soup can or flowers and watch the gift delivered live to the grave.

You can see it here.

Earthcam’s other main arts site are at Petra, Jordan, and at the Hagia Sophia, Instanbul. They are nice views of sites, especially Petra, not that easily accessible. The Warhol thing is a but gimmicky, but then again, wasn’t Warhol too?

 

 

Christie’s Makes It Official; DIA Responds

The City of Detroit has hired Christie’s to value, and presumably sell, part of the collection of the Detroit Institute of Art. It posted this statement on its website earlier today:

We confirm that Christie’s Appraisals Inc. was asked and has entered into an agreement to appraise a portion of the City owned collection at the Detroit Institute of Art.  In addition we will also assist and advise on how to realize value for the City while leaving the art in the City’s ownership.

Appraisal of organizations and individual collections is a regular part of our normal business and Christie’s was asked to assist due to our expertise in this area across all fine art categories and eras.  We understand that a valuation of all the City’s assets (extending well beyond the art) is one of many steps that will be necessary for the legal system to reach a conclusion about the best long term solution for the citizens of Detroit.

At Christie’s, we are passionate about art and understand the importance of the contribution that institutions such as the Detroit Institute of Arts offer to the community and the world at large.  We are proud of our long history of support to museums, including the DIA.  We want to continue to focus our efforts on being a positive force in both the interests of the City of Detroit and its arts community, including working with our fellow arts professionals at the DIA and with the City to find alternatives to selling that would still provide the City with needed revenue.

The last paragraph was meant to calm critics (like me), I suppose. It doesn’t.

Here’s the statement issued in response by the DIA:

The Detroit Institute of Arts (DIA) has learned that Christie’s, at the request of the Emergency Manager, plans to proceed with a valuation of the DIA collection, and we will be cooperating completely in that process. However, we continue to believe there is no reason to value the collection as the Attorney General has made clear that the art is held in charitable trust and cannot be sold as part of a bankruptcy proceeding. We applaud the EM’s focus on rebuilding the City, but would point out that he undercuts that core goal by jeopardizing Detroit’s most important cultural institution.

In addition, recent moves in Oakland and Macomb counties to invalidate the tri-county millage if art is sold virtually ensure that any forced sale of art would precipitate the rapid demise of the DIA. Removing $23 million in annual operating funds – nearly 75% of the museum’s operating budget – and violating the trust of donors and supporters would cripple the museum, putting an additional financial burden on our already struggling city. The DIA has long been doing business without City of Detroit operating support; any move that compromises its financial stability will endanger the museum and further challenge the City’s future.

Last week, Reuters had a excellent wrap-up article describing the situation and explaining what might happen if the art is sold.